Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
University of Nebraska Omaha
University of New BrunswickUniversity of New Hampshire
University of New HavenUniversity of New Mexico
University of North FloridaUniversity of North Texas
University of Northern IowaUniversity of Notre Dame
University of OregonUniversity of Ottawa
University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Redlands
University of Rhode IslandUniversity of RochesterUniversity of San Diego
University of San FranciscoUniversity of Saskatchewan
University of Southern MaineUniversity of Southern Mississippi
University of St. ThomasUniversity of Tennessee Health Science Center
University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleUniversity of Texas at Dallas
University of the Sciences in PhiladelphiaUniversity of Vermont
University of WashingtonUniversity of West Florida
Vanderbilt UniversityVirginia Commonwealth University
Virginia Department of General ServicesWake Forest University
Washburn UniversityWashington University in St. Louis
Wellesley CollegeWesleyan University
West Chester UniversityWest Liberty University
West Virginia Health Science CenterWest Virginia Institute of Technology
West Virginia School of Osteopathic MedicineWest Virginia State University
West Virginia UniversityWestern Connecticut State University
Western Oregon UniversityW tfi ld St t U i it
Exploring the State of Sustainability in Higher Education 2015
Presented by Jay PearlmanFebruary 1, 2016
3
Agenda
Introduction and background – how we got here and why we conducted the study
Detailed summary of findings
Factors affecting energy consumption and emissions
Which campuses are making progress and why?
Conclusions and recommendations
4
“The State of Sustainability in Higher Education”Report on emissions metrics, consumption trends, and strategies available now!
Visit www.sightlines.com to download your free copy
today
Introduction & Background
5
Sightlines is a Facility Asset Advisory Firm
Separate fact from fiction on key issues – operational performance, annual funding needs, and project backlogs.
Identify ways to use capital more strategically and identify opportunities to improve operational effectiveness.
Document trends, provide consistent measurement, credible benchmarking and track progress to goals.
Analytical Rigor, Common Vocabulary, Consistent Methodology, Common Platform
6
7
Who Partners with Sightlines?Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums and state systems
* U.S. News Rankings
Sightlines is proud to announce that:
• 450 colleges and universities are Sightlines clients including over 325 ROPA members.
• 93% of ROPA members renewed in 2014
• We have clients in 42 states, the District of Columbia and four Canadian provinces
• More than 100 new institutions became Sightlines members since 2013
Sightlines advises state systems in:
• Alaska• California• Connecticut• Hawaii• Maine• Massachusetts• Minnesota• Mississippi• Missouri• Nebraska• New Hampshire• New Jersey• Pennsylvania• Texas• West Virginia
Serving the Nation’s Leading Institutions:
• 70% of the Top 20 Colleges*• 75% of the Top 20 Universities*• 33 Flagship State Universities• 13 of the 14 Big 10 Institutions• 9 of the 12 Ivy Plus Institutions• 7 of 12 Selective Liberal Arts Colleges
8
Key Milestones in Higher Ed Sustainability
1997 • Kyoto Protocol
2000 • USGBC launches LEED standards
2001 • WRI introduces Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol
2002 • Clean Air – Cool Planet and UNH develop Campus Carbon Calculator
2004 • Campus Carbon Calculator v4 publically released
2006 • Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) formed
2007 • American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) launched
2008 • Sightlines introduces “Go-Green” Sustainability Solutions
2010 • AASHE STARS program is introduced
9
Campus Carbon Calculator™ and CMAPHelping Campuses Track Their Carbon Footprints Since 2011
10
Why We Did the StudyTo explore and take the first comprehensive look at key sustainability questions
Are campus conservation and efficiency initiatives succeeding?
How have changes in enrollment, and a national campus building boom, impacted carbon management efforts?
How much does progress depend on the amount and type of campus capital investment?
How much impact do external factors (e.g. public policies, energy costs, etc.) have?
How can campuses be more strategic and effective in managing carbon and energy footprints?
Is anything missing from the available set of campus sustainability metrics?
11
The Power of Aggregated, Standardized DataStudy methodology
Data Sources
Sightlines Return on Physical Assets (ROPA) database, with the CCC calculation methodology overlaid. This database has extensive Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) for its inputs.
CMAP database, with data from both inputs and outputs of campus GHG inventories. Primarily used for comparison and “reality-checking” the results of ROPA analysis.
Sightlines Database Distribution
60%40%
Public Private
34%
21%36%
9%
Comprehensive ResearchSmall Institutions Community Colleges
12
Operational BoundariesBoundaries Framework from the GHG Protocol
34%
39%
27%
FY14 Emissions by Scope
Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3Utility Emissions Non-Utility Emissions
Typical GHG Profile for a 4 Year InstitutionFocusing in on energy-related emissions
13
Direct SourcesScope 1• Stationary Combustion (Fossil Fuels and Biomass)• Fleet Fuel• Fugitive Emissions (Refrigerants and Agriculture)
Upstream SourcesScope 2• Purchased Electricity• Purchased Steam/Chilled Water
Indirect SourcesScope 3• Daily Commuting (Faculty, Staff and Students)• Outsourced Travel (Air and Ground Travel)• Waste Products (Solid Waste and Wastewater)• Paper Purchases• Transmission & Distribution Losses
Approximately 60-80% of emissions are due to energy
use in campus facilities
14
Carbon Management Hierarchy“Best practice” approach
Avoid
Reduce
Replace
Offset
The Carbon Management Hierarchy
Actions at the top of the hierarchy are more transformative and lasting in terms of reducing a company’s emissions baseline.
Avoid carbon intensive activities(and rethink business strategy)
Do whatever you do more efficiently
Replace high-carbon energy sources with low-carbon energy sources
Offset those emissions that can’t be eliminated by the above
Detailed Summary of Findings
15
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
% o
f Con
stru
cted
Spa
ce
Constructed Space 1880-2015
Sightlines Database
Waves of Facilities Growth
16
Pre-
War Built before 1951
Durable constructionOlder but typically lasts longer Po
st-W
ar Built between 1951 and 1975Lower-quality constructionAlready needing more repairs and renovations
Mod
ern Built between 1975 and
1990Quick-flash constructionLow-quality building components\
Com
plex
Built in 1991 and newerTechnically complex spacesHigher-quality, more expensive to maintain & repair
Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex
17
Campus Space & Enrollment GrowthSpace growth has outpaced growth in enrollment
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Space and Enrollment Growth
Space Growth Enrollment Growth
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
% o
f Con
stru
cted
Spa
ce
Constructed Space 1880-2015
Sightlines Database Texas
Texas – A Slightly Different Profile
18
Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex
Texas - Campus Space and EnrollmentTexas average for enrollment and space growth
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Perc
ent C
hang
e of
Enr
ollm
ent &
Spa
ce
Texas Space Growth Texas Enrollment Growth
Texas – Density Factor is Increasing
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Den
sity
Fac
tor (
Use
rs/1
00,0
00 G
SF)
21
Scope 1 Stationary and Scope 2 Emissions & Consumption Since 2010
Emissions decreased 5%; consumption increased 3%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MTC
DE
Emissions
Purchased Fossil Purchased ElectricPercent Change
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MM
BTU
Consumption
Purchased Fossil Purchased ElectricPercent Change
22
Normalized Scope 1 Stationary and Scope 2 Emissions & Consumption Since 2007
Emissions decreased 13%, consumption down 2%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MTC
DE/
1,0
00 G
SF
Emissions
Purchased Fossil Purchased ElectricPercent Change
-15%
-13%
-11%
-9%
-7%
-5%
-3%
-1%
1%
3%
5%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
BTU
/GSF
Consumption
Purchased Fossil Purchased ElectricPercent Change
23
Purchased Fossil Emissions & ConsumptionFossil emissions decreased 14%; consumption down 4%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MTC
DE/
1,0
00 G
SF
Fossil Emissions
Purchased Fossil Percent Change
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
BTU
/GSF
Fossil Consumption
Purchased Fossil Percent Change
24
Fuel Mix of Fossil ConsumptionRapid shift to natural gas since 2007
74% 75% 76% 80% 82% 85% 87% 87%
17% 18% 17%14% 14% 12% 10% 10%
9% 7% 7% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Fuel Mix
Natural Gas Coal Other Fuel
25
Purchased Electric Emissions & ConsumptionElectric emissions decreased 2%; 1% increase in consumption
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MTC
DE/
1,0
00 G
SF
Electric Emissions
Purchased Electric Percent Change
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
BTU
/GSF
Electric Consumption
Purchased Electric Percent Change
26
Electric Grid Emissions ImpactOverall improvements in grid emissions
2908
7%
2924
2%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Electric Grid
Change in Electric Grid Emissions (2007 to 2014)
Factors Affecting Energy Consumption & Emissions
27
28
Total Energy Consumption & Campus SizeGenerally, consumption increases with campus size
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
10,000,000
0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000
Tota
l Ene
rgy
Con
sum
ptio
n (M
MB
TU)
Total GSF
29
Focus on Energy ReductionPublic and private average for energy consumption
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Perc
ent C
hang
e Si
nce
2007
BTU
/GSF
Fossil Consumption Electric Consumption Percent Change of Total Consumption
Public Average Private Average
30
How Are Capital Dollars Being Spent?Higher investment into envelope/mechanical systems
44% 41% 38% 39% 39% 38% 36% 36%43% 42% 41% 44% 44% 41% 43% 45%
37%38% 42% 41% 42% 43% 44% 41%
41% 40% 41% 41% 41% 42% 42% 40%
19% 21% 20% 20% 19% 19% 20% 23%16% 18% 18% 15% 15% 17% 15% 15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Space Renewal & Safety Code Envelope & Building System Infrastructure
Public Average Private Average
31
Campuses Grouped by Change in Consumption The majority are stable in their consumption
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Reduced Consumption by Morethan 10%
Stable Consumption Increased Consumption by Morethan 10%
# In
stitu
tions
Change In Consumption from 2007 to 2014
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric
32
Energy Consumption & Unit CostsConsumption is higher where unit cost is lower
Degree Days=6951
Degree Days= 6426
Degree Days=7114
Degree Days=4769
Degree Days=9922
Degree Days=15178
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Far West &Southwest
New England Mid-East Plains &Rockies
Southeast Great Lakes
$/M
MB
TU
BTU
/GSF
Consumption
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric Fossil Unit Cost Electric Unit Cost
33
Emissions & Energy Costs by RegionRegions with lower costs have higher emissions
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
5
10
15
20
25
Far West &Southwest
New England Mid-East Plains &Rockies
Southeast Great Lakes
$/M
MB
TU
MTC
DE/
1,0
00 G
SF
Emissions
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric Fossil Unit Cost Electric Unit Cost
34
States Ranked by Strength of Energy Efficiency PolicyACEE annual rankings
35
State Policy Rank & EmissionsStates with strong policy have lower emissions
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
Top Third Middle Third Bottom Third
MTC
DE/
1,0
00 G
SF
Emissions - ACEEE Energy Efficiency Scorecard
27% Greater
45% Greater
72% Greater
36
State Policy Rank & ConsumptionStates with strong policy have lower consumption
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Top Third Middle Third Bottom Third
BTU
/GSF
Consumption - ACEEE Energy Efficiency Scorecard
18% Greater
4% Greater
22% Greater
Which Campuses Are Making Progress and Why?
37
38
Emissions and Consumption of Signatories vs. Non-SignatoriesClimate Commitment Signatories have 47% lower emissions; 27% lower consumption
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Climate CommitmentSignatory
Non-Signatory
MTC
DE/
1,0
00 G
SF
2014 Emissions
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Climate CommitmentSignatory
Non-Signatory
BTU
/GSF
2014 Consumption
39
ACUPCC Signatories Energy Consumption Over TimeSustaining consumption reductions is difficult
-9%
-8%
-7%
-6%
-5%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Years Since Signing ACUPCC
Percent Change in Energy Consumption (BTU/GSF)
Conclusions & Recommendations
40
41
Conclusion and Key Takeaways
Gross emissions from Stationary Scope 1 and Scope 2 sources are down a modest 5% from 2010-2014, with consumption slightly up. Emissions per square foot were down 13% between 2007 and 2014, with usage only down 2%.
Progress in reducing campus carbon footprints came primarily as a result of fuel switching.
Campuses that have shifted capital investments to envelope and mechanical systems have made more progress in reducing GHG emissions and reducing energy use, while schools with older buildings had to spend more just to keep consumption stable.
Campus size, density, age profile, and capital investment portfolios are key drivers of GHG emissions and energy consumption.
Institutional commitment from leadership will be a key driver in sustainability outcomes.
Energy cost has a big impact on energy consumption.
Public policy and incentives are critical.
42
Strategic QuestionsOffering higher education institutions a path to lower emissions and consumption
How important is institutional commitment from campus leadership to improve carbon emissions and drive successful sustainability outcomes?
What role does strategic capital investment play in reducing carbon emissions and how can facilities challenges be turned into sustainability opportunities?
What opportunities exist to implement renewable energy strategies and what would a large-scale adoption of this strategy require?
What public sector-based incentives and regulations would you recommend?
Do the current tools and platforms for collecting and reporting out sustainability metrics fully support the movement and its progress? What opportunities for improvement exist?
Questions?
43
![HIGHER EDUCATION SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES [HESI]...HIGHER EDUCATION SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES [HESI] A Case Study on the American International University – Bangladesh [AIUB]](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/5f102ed67e708231d447dacb/higher-education-sustainability-initiatives-hesi-higher-education-sustainability.jpg)
